Shouldn't this discussion be taking place *on* the LGBT list? ;-) Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:09 AM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > WMF could put up funding for research to be done by experts. > > On Jul 6, 2012 2:06 PM, <koltzenb...@w4w.net> wrote: > Hi John > > > havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the > > wikimedia community - > > these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack > > if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without > > explanation. > > so here we can definitely point to a common concern (re the list focus of > both gendergap and lgbt): > see e.g. > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002905.html > and earlier ones in the same thread > > John / @all: do you have any suggestion as to what do about this? > > cheers > Claudia > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 13:28:18 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote > > Hi Claudia. There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations, and > > the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their > > numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline. i > > havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the > > wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack > > if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without > > explanation. > > On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM, <koltzenb...@w4w.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote > > > > I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. > > > > > > my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* > > > communities - if ever non-heterosexual > > > people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying > > > non-heterosexual, that is ... - > > > > > > irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in > > > many (like in LGBTIQA*, with * > > > including heterosexuals of whatever gender) > > > > > > and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between > > > non-heterosexuals and > > > heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals > > > are the freest and hence could > > > act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it > > > seems to me) > > > > > > > The point of the > > > [LGBT] > > > > list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation > > > > like gendergap is. > > > > > > why is this not intended, Tom? > > > see also the following: > > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote > > > > I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring > > > the > > > > faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in > > > wikimedia > > > > when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population > > > > studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it > > > > does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic > > > > approach to solving. > > > > > > maybe there is another methodological issue here? > > > why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in > > > outcomes of any study that > > > purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by > > > real-world population studies"? > > > > > > how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find > > > out anything reliable about the > > > size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and > > > political attempts at silencing (about > > > their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination? > > > > > > maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results > > > to the wikimedia results? > > > hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below > > > :-) > > > > > > anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the > > > [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and > > > will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see > > > what these two lists have in common :-) > > > so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other! > > > > > > cheers > > > Claudia > [...] > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
